An analysis of grass-roots co-operative economic development in Nova Scotia and Caribbean missions (1930-1960) : case studies in the light of Catholic social teaching and social capital theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contrast to research studies, which approach Catholic social teaching (CST) as a theoretical complex, abstracted from situations in which it was applied, this thesis deliberately adapts an inductive method. Through this contextual approach attention devoted to specific co-operative projects exemplifies the extent of CST’s influence. Missionary pioneers created new socioeconomic practices and mutual-aid (voluntary) associations; consequently, these democratic, co-operative practices not only enhanced social capital formation from below but also implicitly challenged a top-down formulation of the social teaching. Thus, this thesis not only analyses specific examples of grass-roots development but also intentionally approaches CST via these specific exemplifications rather than vice versa. These co-operative development projects through self-help, communitarian practices within a social capital-social justice nexus privileged the acting person over dominant collective action, offering an alternative for economic development in tension with both nationalist socialism and liberal capitalism. Five empirical cases, primarily analysing original archival sources, demonstrate an historical interplay between formation of social capital practices and an enactment of CST principles for social justice within co-operative movements. Major findings indicate that social capital, although varied in each case, significantly contributed toward organisational capacities in sustaining grass-roots co-operative practices. Enacting social justice principles, however, proved much more complex in actuality due to divergence, tension, or conflict between multiple government, private and religious-sponsored co-operative sectors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".